M. Hallek, K. Fischer, G. Fingerle-Rowson, A. M. Fink, R. Busch, J. Mayer, M. Hensel, G. Hopfinger, G. Hess, U. von Grünhagen, M. Bergmann, J. Catalano, P. L. Zinzani, F. Caligaris-Cappio, J. F. Seymour, A. Berrebi, U. Jager, B. Cazin, M. Trneny, A. Westermann, C. M. Wendtner, B. F. Eichhorst, P. Staib, A. Bühler, D. Winkler, T. Zenz, S. Bottcher, M. Ritgen, M. Mendila, M. Kneba, H. Dohner, S. Stilgenbauer, International Group of Investigators, German Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia Study Group, “Addition of Rituximab to Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia: A Randomised, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial,” Lancet, Vol. 376, No 9747, 2010, pp. 1164-1174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61381-5

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Differences in Treatment Patterns and Health Care Costs among Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Patients Receiving Rituximab in the Hospital Outpatient Setting versus the Office/Clinic Setting

  AUTHORS: Stacey DaCosta Byfield, Art Small, Laura K. Becker, Carolina M. Reyes

  KEYWORDS: Lymphoma; Leukemia; Rituximab; Treatment Setting; Costs

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol.5 No.2, February 26, 2014

  ABSTRACT: Objective: To examine whether differences in treatment patterns and health care costs exist among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) patients receiving rituximab in a hospital outpatient setting versus those receiving rituximab in a physician office/community clinic setting. Methods: This retrospective database study used medical and pharmacy claims (1/2007-7/2012) from a large US health plan. Patients ≥18 years with ≥2 rituximab claims and ≥2 claims for either NHL or CLL were identified. The date of the first rituximab claim were set as the index date, and differences in treatment patterns and health care costs were examined during the period following the index date. Costs were adjusted for patient characteristics using a multivariate regression model. Results: A total of 4441 patients were identified; 3167 received rituximab in the office/clinic setting, and 1274 in the hospital outpatient setting. From 2007 to 2012, the percentage of patients receiving rituximab in the hospital outpatient setting increased from 22% to 39%. Patients treated in the hospital outpatient setting vs. the office/clinic setting had fewer average counts of rituximab infusions (5.60 vs. 7.49, p 0.001), higher total health care costs (cost ratio = 1.325, p 0.001), higher infusion day drug and administration costs (cost ratio = 1.509, p 0.001), and higher rates of ER visits and inpatient stays (both p 0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that site of care may impact treatment patterns and costs of patients receiving rituximab, and additional research is needed to better understand the reason(s) for these differences by site of service.